The catalyst for a private credit crisis will be publicly traded, daily NAV funds. These vehicles promise investors daily liquidity while holding assets that are completely illiquid. This mismatch creates the perfect conditions for a "run on the bank" scenario during a market downturn.

To combat the misconception of easy access to cash, Goldman Sachs has internally banned the common industry term "semi-liquid" for its alternative funds. This linguistic shift is a deliberate risk management strategy to underscore that while these products have liquidity features, they are fundamentally illiquid and access to capital is never guaranteed.

Private credit is being sold to retail investors through products that appear liquid like stocks but are not. These "semi-liquid" funds have clauses allowing them to halt redemptions during market stress, trapping investor capital precisely when they want it most, creating a "run-on-the-bank" panic.

Goldman Sachs avoids the term "semi-liquid" because it provides false comfort. The liquidity gates on these evergreen funds are a feature, not a bug, designed to prevent fire-selling assets. They are most likely to be activated when investors are clamoring for redemptions.

Funds offer investors quarterly liquidity while holding illiquid, 5-7 year corporate loans. This duration mismatch creates the same mechanics as a bank run, without FDIC insurance. When redemption requests surge, funds are forced to sell long-term assets at fire-sale prices, triggering a potential collapse.

The structure of modern private credit vehicles, particularly non-traded BDCs, replicates a classic asset-liability mismatch by funding illiquid loans with potentially liquid investor capital. This fundamental flaw predictably leads to liquidity crunches during redemption waves, which can escalate into broader credit crises as forced selling begins.

Historically, investors demanded an "illiquidity premium" to compensate for the bug of being unable to sell. Now, firms market illiquidity as a feature that enforces discipline. In markets, you pay for features and get paid for bugs, implying this shift will lead to lower future returns for private assets.

Many investors mistakenly believed private credit funds offered semi-liquidity, not understanding the underlying assets are fundamentally illiquid. The realization that liquidity is a discretionary feature, not a guarantee, is causing a healthy but painful exodus from the asset class as mismatched expectations are corrected.

When facing a downturn or redemption pressures, private credit funds cannot easily sell their troubled, illiquid loans. Instead, they are forced to sell their high-quality, liquid assets, creating contagion risk in otherwise healthy public markets.